List Workspaces

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that results are limited to workspaces the caller can access and that no filtering is applied. It does not mention pagination, result-size expectations, ordering, or any failure/auth modes, which is a meaningful gap for a listing endpoint with no annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope before the return content. The second sentence partially duplicates what the output schema already conveys, so it is efficient but not maximally economical.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With zero parameters and an output schema already documenting the returned fields, the description covers what the agent needs to select and call this tool. Only minor operational details (pagination, ordering) are absent, which is acceptable given the output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes no parameters (schema coverage is 100% trivially), so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to clarify. It correctly avoids inventing filter or paging arguments that the schema does not support.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (workspaces) with an explicit scope qualifier, 'you have access to', so the agent knows the result set is permission-filtered. No sibling tool competes for this action, so the lack of explicit differentiation isn't a real gap, but there's nothing that elevates it above a clear, standard listing tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The intent ('get the set of workspaces available to me') is implied clearly by the name and description, and for a zero-argument listing tool that is largely sufficient. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over e.g. get_workspace_context or search_workspace, nor any note about prerequisites such as authentication.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.